Back
SINDHU SHARMA
Rajan Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Manoj Gupta – Respondent
JUDGMENT
This petition has been filed under Article-227 of Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the Court of City Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Trial Court”) whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order-XI Rule-12 & 14 CPC had been allowed.
2. A civil suit for declaration was filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “plaintiff”) declaring the WILL executed by the late father of the parties namely Shri Krishan Kumar Gupta on 19.07.2019 and registered on same day before the Court of Ld. Sub-Registrar, 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu as illegal, inoperative, null and void, and nonest in the eyes of law; with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction; and further consequential relief of mandatory injunction. The plaintiff had enclosed Annexures-A to E with the suit which were photocopies of memo of family arrangement, lease deed, business conducting agreement, Will and Family settlement.
3. Thereafter an application under Order-VI Rule-17 CPC was moved by the plaintiff along with Annexure-A to E which contains amendment of the plaint which was allowed vide order dated 24.07.2020. Pursua
(1) High Court has to exercise its supervisory powers sparingly and in appropriate cases to keep subordinate Courts in their authority. (2) Where a suit is based on documents, furnishing of copy of d....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power under Article-227 of the Constitution of India should be exercised sparingly and only in cases of grave injustice or failure of just....
The court emphasized that the lower court's order for document production must not be a dilatory tactic and should adhere to legal principles governing such applications.
Judicial officers should not be impleaded in writ petitions, and applications under Order XI must be timely and relevant to the case.
The second opportunity to produce documents under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) is for those who have produced documents with the written statement and have accountable reasons for not producing certain docu....
The defendant's failure to plead reliance on documents in a written statement precludes their admissibility, highlighting the importance of adhering to procedural rules under the Civil Procedure Code....
The court's exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the finding that the existence and relevance of the invoices were not in dispute, and the defendant....
While exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court is not sitting as an appellate court over the orders passed by the subordinate courts.
Jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory; courts may not correct mere errors unless there's a grave dereliction of duty or substantial injustice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
